Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Telangana
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Shaik Shakeel & Another vs The State

High Court Of Telangana|01 December, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 of 2009 01-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Shaik Shakeel & another AND …..Appellants The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the accused 1 & 2 challenging the judgment of the Special Judge under the NDPS Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in S.C.No.17 of 2008 dated 9.02.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one month.
The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 are residents of Amaravati of Maharashtra State. On 29.6.2008 at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.4- Sub-Inspector of Police, Adilabad-I Town P.S. along with his staff rushed to Thirpelli near Vimal gas complex on N.H.No.7, Adilabad and found A.1 and A.2 possessing each one bag in suspicious circumstances. On checking, ganja was found in the bags. Then he secured the presence of P.W.3- Tahsildar, Adilabad and P.W.2 and in their presence, P.W.4 searched the bags and found the ganja. P.W.3 conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused separately in the presence of mediators and 20 kgs. Of ganja was seized from their possession. Samples were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offence.
To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. After evaluating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.
P.W.1 is the Head Constable and on 29.6.2008 he was on patrolling duty along with P.W.3. At about 3.30 p.m., they found the accused near Vimal Gas, adjacent to Tirpelly on N.H.No.7 having possessed bags with them. In the presence of P.W.2 and another, P.W.3 searched the bags and found 10 kgs. of ganja from each bag. P.W.2 is the mediator and panch witness to Exs.P.1 and P.2 confessional-cum-seizure panchanamas of A.1 and A.2. He deposed regarding the search conducted by P.W.3 and seizure of 10 kgs. ganja each from two bags that were in possession of the accused. P.W.3 is the Tahsildar, Adilabad, in whose presence search was conducted and ganja was seized from the possession of the accused. He too supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who intercepted the accused and seized the ganja from the bags that were in their possession. P.W.5 is the investigating officer, who conducted further investigation, examined the witnesses and after receipt of chemical examiner report, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.
After arguing for some time, on evaluation of entire evidence and the findings of the trial Court, when this Court pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellant confined his arguments only to the extent of quantum of sentence and prayed this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in the circumstances of the case.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned conviction imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the conviction imposed on the accused- appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is hereby confirmed, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the one period already undergone by the accused-appellants herein. The fine amount and the default clause imposed by the trial Court is not interfered with.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 01.12.2014.
Tsr
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shaik Shakeel & Another vs The State

Court

High Court Of Telangana

JudgmentDate
01 December, 2014
Judges
  • Raja Elango